[Crm-sig] ISSUE Form and persistence of RDF identifiers

Martin Doerr martin at ics.forth.gr
Tue Jan 23 18:39:37 EET 2018

Dear All,

Thank you very much for your engagement in these issues!
Let me remark, for all those that find our practices alarming, that 
nobody of us is paid for the maintenance of the CRM.
It is exclusively an engagement of volunteers and engagement of 
organizations for a common good.
What is really alarming for me is the lack of users offering active work 
beyond criticism.

We are now in the 22th year of development. If you want to have a CRM in 
which you can find some practices alarming in the future, better engage 
now and support us by coming to the meetings, learn understanding the 
methods and do editing work, tools development, didactic material etc;-).

Besides inviting people to our meetings and learning in the discussions, 
we'll be very glad to offer intensive training in our methods
and principles to anybody interested. Without the one or the other, some 
e-mail discussions may repeat old arguments in a fragmented way,
never convincing, because the overall logic is not exposed. The art is 
balancing all practical requirements and a crystal-clear separation
between the intellectual and technological levels.

Interested people may be domain professionals with a long-term data 
modeling and standards mission, consultants, but in particular also
post-graduate students that can combine their subjects with 
methodological research and become trainers themselves.

So I hope some of you are alarmed enough to join us actively:-D!



On 1/18/2018 2:29 PM, Richard Light wrote:
> Phil,
> This is alarming.  I have always assumed that a superseded class or 
> property would simply be flagged as "deprecated" and a new one minted 
> to replace it. There is absolutely no need to re-use numbers, and I am 
> hoping someone will come forward to say that this was a mistake, and 
> not a change which accords with CRM-SIG policy.  Otherwise, as you 
> say, we can have no confidence in the CRM as a persistent RDF 
> framework, whether or not the class and property identifiers include a 
> textual component.  Is this an isolated case, or does anyone know of 
> other cases where domain and range (and indeed meaning) of a class or 
> property has been changed after its initial publication?
> (The textual component is, in any case, only meant to be guidance and 
> is explicitly stated not to be unique: 'is identified by' below is a 
> good example of this.)
> Best wishes,
> Richard

  Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
  Research Director             |  Fax:+30(2810)391638        |
                                |  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr |
                Center for Cultural Informatics               |
                Information Systems Laboratory                |
                 Institute of Computer Science                |
    Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)   |
                N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,             |
                 GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece               |
              Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl           |

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list